The Karlene Petitt litigation, specifically the Dep't of Labor ALJ decision recently which contained rather negative findings or statements concerning FAA Admin. S. Dickson, is the subject of an article posted today, Dec. 27, on the Wall Street Journal website, written by the Journal's well-known aviation reporter Andy Pasztor. (Administrative Law Judge)
As an SLF/attorney, the case - while not something about which I knew much of anything even after the questions raised in Dickson's Senate confirmation hearings - certainly does appear to connect impactfully with a few important current developing situations in aviation law and policy, and to the extent it is a different subject area, aviation safety. For one thing, the recent FAA reform legislation passed by Congress (but caught up in other national political gamesmanship in Washington) contains significant additional whistleblower protections. Yet, whether the RLA and other federal law protections extend sufficiently to airline aviators could be open to serious question, in light of the ALJ ruling.
Moreover, the concerns voiced and tenaciously advocated for by Ms. Petitt appear to relate to or concern aspects of aviation safety presenting increasingly high significance for the U.S. (and probably, international) civil aviation sector. Despite the pandemic and the global recession or depression in travel. Inasmuch as this SLF/atty hasn't located (or obviously read) the ALJ ruling yet, just one item of the safety concerns at the root of the litigated matter should be commented on further.
"Chronic pilot fatigue" was one safety concern of Ms. Petitt, according to the WSJ news article. This reminds me of a speech or lecture given a few years back by NTSB head Robert Sumwalt. An audience member in the q-&-a asked about whether an accident would need to occur in order to cause reform efforts to advance, with regard to more realistic and enforceable regulations concerning pilot duty limits and rest periods (or words of inquiry to that effect). "We've already had that accident", the Board chairman responded, referencing Colgan Air 3407. Will the ALJ ruling have a similar impact, one can only wonder?
Of course an appeal of the ALJ ruling is reported to be planned by the company. Ah yes, the refined, occasionally rarified air of the practice of law in the United States, where billable hours and boardroom egos collide with . . . whatever happens to be really important - as opposed to just reflections of materialistic frustrations - in a given case at bar.